Talk:H.M.S. Pinafore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.

You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Original comment

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/HM/HMS_Pinafore2.htm

The article is entirely copied-and-pasted from the site linked above. -- (said Sophysduckling mistakenly.)

Well, duh. Look at the source of that site's article... "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL." --Quuxplusone 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Song List

I'd like to see a songlist made, the Mikado page has one. 66.131.199.150, 21:42, 13 December 2005

  • So what's stopping you? Wahkeenah 00:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There you are, a songlist. I tried to stick to the Libretto's listing (hence the large amount of capitalisation). Any improvements are more than welcome, but there it is as a basis. D-Chan 01:30, 30 December 2005 (GMT)
  • The song "For He is an Englishman" is missing from the song list. Isn't it the last song? ColinKennedy 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The reprise of it is the last verbiage in the play, but the whole song is earlier. I'm not sure if D-Chan forgot it, or if he considered part of that earlier song, so I have simply referenced it and someone with better knowledge of the libretto can elaborate and/or correct. Wahkeenah 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. "For He is an Englishman" is not a separate song. It is a theme first sung by Ralph and the Chorus in the middle of "Carefully on Tiptoe Stealing" then reprised at the end of it and reprised again at the end of the Act II Finale. The numbered songlist is perfectly correct as it is. "Carefully on Tiptoe Stealing" includes several themes including "What was that", "You have gone too far", "My pain and my distress" and "His sisters and his cousins and his aunts" as well as "For He is an Englishman" but these form a narrative (and a musical) whole rather than being separate songs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Then you should re-add that to the song list, or footnote it, or something, in order to anticipate the question. "He is an Englishman" is a lot more recognizable than "Carefully on tiptoe stealing" to the casual observer. Wahkeenah 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Or, maybe I'll do it. :) Wahkeenah 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I dood it. :) Wahkeenah 13:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Have clarified the slightly eccentric choices of titles for the individual sections. Adam Cuerden 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks okay. Perhaps we could do the same for some of the other numbers that are made up of well known parts -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. Wahkeenah 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then. When I was adding it, I was working with the libretto in my lap...as I said, I tried to stick to the libretto's listing...therefore, I typed what it said and pretty much how it said it. But then, different editions and all...Anyway, good point about the familiarity.D-Chan 22:30, 9th February 2006 (GMT)
You did a good job. Working with the libretto was exactly the right thing to do. All that we were discussing above was adding a bit more information, so that people could see how the libretto titles match up to some of the popular songs from the show which don't have a separate listing in the libretto. -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I have all the libretti now (bar Thespis, which I have in a book of all of them) so I was thinking of doing such lists for all the articles that don't currently have them. But that's if I can be bothered...after I did HMS Pinafore, I did Iolanthe, though...so...yeah.D-Chan 14:55, 11th February 2006 (GMT)
And...done! Go take a look if you wish :) I haven't done Thespis, but I might...I dunno how able I'd be.D-Chan 21:48, 12th February 2006 (GMT)

As I understand it, Sir Joseph is not an Admiral, that is part of the point of the satire, that while he is First Lord he knows nothing about the Navy.Fat Red 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. He is the civilian First Lord of the Admiralty (a mixture of civilian lords and admirals); not an admiral himself. And as you say, he knows nothing about the Navy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Other than the fact that being on a ship during bad weather makes him seasick. Wahkeenah 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
<heh>, <heh>, Yup. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering of Songs

Please do not change this to a default numbering: The scores number songs in a very specific way that should be kept. These numbers are used as an easy way to communicate with musicians, singers, and the like, and are STANDARDISED at an early stage. Additions and further divisions are marked by sub-lettering the numbers, and some operas have missing numbers, but this is completely correct. Adam Cuerden 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Hebe's solo ? It was cut from the original performance but I believe that it does exist in the license copy filed with the British Library. And it is - very occasionally - performed. We are using it in the current Calgary production for instance but it doesn't appear in your completely correct list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologise: I should have said what I was correcting it from. Someone had re-numbered the score using # as a tag, so that it read as so:

Act I

  1. "We sail the ocean blue" (Sailors)
  2. "I'm called Little Buttercup" (Buttercup)
  3. "But tell me who's the youth" (Buttercup and Boatswain)
  4. "The nightingale" (Ralph and Chorus of Sailors)
  5. "A maiden fair to see" (Ralph and Chorus of Sailors)
  6. "My gallant crew, good morning" (Captain Corcoran and Chorus of Sailors)
  7. "Sir, you are sad" (Buttercup and Captain Corcoran)
  8. "Sorry her lot who loves too well" (Josephine)
  9. "Over the bright blue sea" (Chorus of Female Relatives)
 10. "Sir Joseph's barge is seen" (Chorus of Sailors and Female Relatives)
 11. "Now give three cheers" (Captain Corcoran, Sir Joseph, Cousin Hebe, and Chorus)
 12. "When I was a lad" (Sir Joseph and Chorus)
 13. "For I hold that on the sea" (Sir Joseph, Cousin Hebe, and Chorus)
 14. "A British tar" (Ralph, Boatswain, Carpenter's Mate, and Chorus of Sailors)
 15. "Refrain, audacious tar" (Josephine and Ralph)
 16. Finale, Act I: "Can I survive this overbearing?"

Act II

  1. "Fair moon, to thee I sing" (Captain Corcoran)
  2. "Things are seldom what they seem" (Buttercup and Captain Corcoran)
  3. "The hours creep on apace" (Josephine)
  4. "Never mind the why and wherefore" (Josephine, Captain, and Sir Joseph)
  5. "Kind Captain, I've important information" (Captain and Dick Deadeye)
  6. "Carefully on tiptoe stealing" (Soli and Chorus)1
  7. "Farewell, my own" (Ralph, Josephine, Sir Joseph Porter, Buttercup, and Chorus)
  8. "A many years ago" (Buttercup and Chorus)
  9. "Here, take her, sir" (Sir Joseph, Josephine, Ralph, Cousin Hebe, and Chorus)2
 10. Finale: "Oh joy, oh rapture unforeseen!" (Ensemble) 3

This is wrong. Numbering should follow the scores. Certainly, if solos for Hebe still exist they should well be added in their proper place, but the rest of the numbering should not be shifted to suit them. Adam Cuerden 19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, there's nothing to keep the "official" numberings rom being broken down into further parts. For instance, it MIGHT be appropriate to add in 18b: "He is an Englishman" (though it's not a standard division) or to list it under 18a: "Pretty daughter of mine" and "He is and Englishman". Such things may well be desirable, but they should keep any numberings in the scores themselves intact. Adam Cuerden 20:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it might be best to put any futher divisions under their original numberings as two parts of the song. That is 18a: "Pretty daughter of mine" and "He is and Englishman" - it eliminates any possibility of confusion, even if I have violated this over at Utopia Limited by assisting in the dividing up of the Act I finale. Ah, well. Time to go fix my revisions there back. Adam Cuerden 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand. You were quite right to do what you did. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Comic) Oper(ett)a

FYI, Gilbert and Sullivan themselves referred to their works as "comic operas" or "operas." They never referred to their works as operettas. I have therefore restored that phrase. Marc Shepherd 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but they were not using Comic opera in its normal technical sense which refers to a form used in 18th century Italy. They were more likely using it as a translation of opera comique which refers to the slightly different 19th century French genre which their work does resemble. For the article it is more appropriate to use the more generic (and undoubtedly correct) term operetta to describe them than to use a more specific (and slightly misleading) term like "Comic opera", even if that was what the authors used. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not persuaded that this is the "normal technical sense" of the term. Mahler did not write symphonies in the "normal technical sense" that Haydn and Mozart wrote them, but we have no hesitation accepting Mahler's preference to style nine of his works as "symphonies." For that matter, Wagner's concept of opera is not the same as Monteverdi's. Most musical terms evolve as new works are written, and it would be peculiar to fix the meaning of one particular term – comic opera – to be what 18th century Italians thought it was. Marc Shepherd 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The main article should probably be titled "H.M.S."...., rather than "HMS", as the former is correct. Marc Shepherd 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just a matter of style. Wikipedia's style is to leave the periods and spaces out of most initialisms. The links to alternative styles of the title, H.M.S Pinafore and H. M. S. Pinafore both exist in case people want to use them in other articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That is true in general, but I also think there is a guideline (somewhere) that states that works should be titled as their authors titled them. Marc Shepherd 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree it's just a matter of style, and we should let sleeping dogs lie. "HMS" or "H.M.S." is just a typographical convention; and personally I also prefer "HMS" to "H.M.S.", "USSR" to "U.S.S.R.", and so on. The one exception is "U.S." versus "US", for ease of searching. --Quuxplusone 06:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Victorian British opera, Victorian British spelling. Is there any other opera we update to modern punctuation conventions? I mean, we use Utopia, Limited, Not Utopia, Ltd. -- Adam Cuerden (was me!)
Other operas ? How about the "Die Zauberflöte", which we change from the 18th century Austrian German used by its composer to its modern English title, The Magic Flute. In practice we always write about our topics in modern English even if the topic is a work itself originally produced in English from another era or in another language. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Magic Flute is a commonly used title. The change here is more akin to listing The Colour of Magic under The Color of Magic - an arbitrary change, that is seen places, but is not the preferred usage. Adam Cuerden 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The WP naming convention for operas is that they should be named in their original language, except where the English name is commonly known. Thus, The Magic Flute is fine, but Puccini's La Bohème doesn't appear as The Bohemian, which would be absurd. We're discussing something a little different here, since H.M.S. Pinafore is already an English title. But the spirit of the guideline, obviously, is that the periods should be there, as the opera has a long history of being styled that way. I have been correcting it on any page where it appears. Marc Shepherd 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. However I note that you are using the modern style H.M.S. rather than the Victorian style H. M. S. You may want to consider which one is the more authentic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Surely that to some extent depends on font? I mean, it's a difference in space after a period, which is a pretty indistinct thing to view already. Adam Cuerden
Sounds like selective pedantry to me. If you agree that "H.M.S." isn't historically accurate, why do you prefer it to the Wikipedia style, "HMS"? Notice, by the way, that one reason for Wikipedia's style on initialisms is because this is a Web resource, and Web search engines have a bias toward "HMS", "USSR", and the like. They often match "H.M.S." as closer to "H M S" — i.e., three one-letter words — which isn't what we want. I maintain that "HMS Pinafore" is the correct title on the English Wikipedia, and changing it to "H.M.S." simply because that's (halfway between) what Gilbert wrote (and what we write today) makes about as much sense as changing The Canterbury Tales to The Book of the tales of Caunterbury. --Quuxplusone 18:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I just tried google searches on H. M. S. Pinafore, H.M.S. Pinafore, and HMS Pinafore. Search on it any way you like, and the same results come back. Dots or no dots, spaces or no spaces, it doesn't matter to google. So if seach-engine friendliness is the purported reason for omiting the dots, it is misguided. Marc Shepherd 21:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked the width of the spaces in every use of "H.M.S." in Gilbert's day. Type was set manually then, and the compositor had many different widths available. Surely the subtlety of space widths between periods and the following letter is on a completely different level of perception than renaming The Canturbury Tales to The Book of the tales of Caunterbury. The fact is that HTML rendering in general does not handle spaces with the sensitivity of the professional typesetting. This is merely one example of it. Marc Shepherd 21:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Song

I was recently in this play, and there was no such song as "Here, Take Her Sir" near the end. It wasn't even in my score, or anyone else's. If somebody could post the lyrics (if that's allowed), I'd be interested in seeing it. Incidently, one song we did have which is not on the song list here (because G&S decided to remove it, but our director put it back) was "Reflect my Child", which is a duet between the captain and Josephine near the beginning. -- Anon

This was a recitative in the original production. As it says in the footnote: "It was restored to dialogue in all subsequent productions and is almost never performed today." -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added some futher detail on both "Reflect, my child" and the lost recitative. Marc Shepherd 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dover score includes the Recit. Adam Cuerden 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Comments Removed

I've removed the following:

The title of the work itself is comic, in that it suggests "brave sailors serving aboard a man-of-war whose namesake [was] a lady's apron."

...and...

Given the operetta's mockery of the "Queen's Navee" and class structure in general, it is perhaps unsurprising that its reception among the nobility was cool. Legend has it that Queen Victoria summed up her reaction to the performance with the famous phrase "We are not amused". Gilbert was to insert a backhanded sort of apology in Pirates of the Penzance in which he mentions "that infernal nonsense Pinafore" and hinges the plot on overblown love for the Queen.

If anyone can back up either comment, feel free to restore them. Marc Shepherd 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the first one was true--it is funny on its face that the flagship of the British Navy would be named after a frilly piece of clothing. --Ssilvers 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, an earlier editor put {cite needed} after the first point, as it was given in quotation marks – suggesting a quote – but no source was given. I don't dispute that the title is humorous. Marc Shepherd 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I put in a sentence about the name being humorous. See if you like it. --Ssilvers 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeon vs. Brig

Somebody changed dungeon to brig and Marc changed it back. Sir Joseph says "Dungeon", but ships don't have dungeons. I think the joke is that Sir Joseph doesn't know anything about ships. So, I think, one should either say "the brig" or "what Sir Joseph calls the ship's "dungeon". --Ssilvers 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinafore is no ordinary ship. Sir Joseph asks "Have you such a thing as a dungeon onboard ?". To which the sailors all reply "We have". Everyone then proceeds to sing about "the dungeon cell". At no point is a brig mentioned. Thus it appears that this no joke. Pinafore does indeed have a dungeon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. I think they're just saying "dungeon" because Sir J. said "dungeon". The sailors agree with Sir J, because a brig IS "such a thing" as a dungeon. I haven't got the OED here, but in the U.S. a ship's prison is definitely a brig. Does anyone know for sure whether British naval ships *always* called their prisons "brig"? --Ssilvers 22:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if it could be demonstrated that Gilbert was making a joke here – I'm inclined to agree with Derek that he wasn't – it's rather awkward to say "what Sir Joseph calls the ship's 'dungeon'," just to make that point. It's a synopsis, not a lexicon. Benford, by the way, who was a Naval Architect by training, didn't see fit to say anything about it in his book. Joseph Conrad, in The Mirror of the Sea, makes a number of ship-dungeon metaphors, such as:
Fortunately, nothing can deface the beauty of a ship. That sense of a dungeon, that sense of a horrible and degrading misfortune overtaking a creature fair to see and safe to trust, attaches only to ships moored in the docks of great European ports. You feel that they are dishonestly locked up, to be hunted about from wharf to wharf on a dark, greasy, square pool of black water as a brutal reward at the end of a faithful voyage. [1]
and
The south-westerly weather is the thick weather Par Excellence. It is not the thickness of the fog; it is rather a contraction of the horizon, a mysterious veiling of the shores with clouds that seem to make a low-vaulted dungeon around the running ship. It is not blindness; it is a shortening of the sight. [2]
Marc Shepherd 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, Sam. "Brig" is the technical term for a ship's prison in all English speaking countries but I still don't think that Gilbert was making a joke here. If it had been a joke, I think that he would have made it plainer, since the audience couldn't be expected to know that the term is incorrect. As well as that it's not a great time for jokes, since it's a moment of dramatic tension what with the captain in disgrace and Ralph under arrest. I think that Gilbert needs to emphasis Sir Joseph's power here rather than his incompetence in order to maintain that tension. The funny stuff doesn't really restart until after Buttercup's revelations resolve the tension. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I yield, I yield. Your utterances are unanswerable. --Ssilvers 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
<grin>, and they weren't even official! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 or 28

The opening date is different here and in wikisource. Someone please change either here or there.

Good catch. It was the 25th. I've corrected the article. Marc Shepherd 20:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reginald Allen book

Which book is being referenced? It says 1979. His first night book is 1975? --Ssilvers 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that problem a while ago. I just haven't had a chance to check it. Allen wrote more than one book. I'm not sure which one was referenced here. Marc Shepherd 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I dunno. It's a nice image, but I'd prefer something older as the first image. Just seems a little too slick and modern for such a period piece. Adam Cuerden talk 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The image seems a little too big now. I deleted the advertisement for Timothy West at the bottom of it, but why do we have to say the name of the show again at the top, when it appears in huge letters on the image. If you have a better image, feel free to change it. --Ssilvers 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I like This image from this Library of Congress page, which dates from the first D'Oyly Carte production. But can we use it? Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It's out of copyright worldwide (1879--see lower left) -- Ssilvers 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright for intro paragraph?

It's very similar to this:

Does Wikipedia have rights to reproduce that, or is that from Wikipedia? I.e. is it on Wikipedia legally? Thanks. laddiebuck 00:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that for the G&S Archive (the site whose link you show above), and I also wrote the introduction for Wikipedia. So I hereby authorize myself to use my own work, as long as I ask myself politely!  :-) -- Ssilvers 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollins and Witts

I don't know what pages in the supplements the last couple tours are from. Maybe Marc can help? However, he said that they were Rollins and Witts, and I trust him. - Shoemaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is helpful to list the cast for the Imperial pirated production. None of them are notable, and it clutters up the table. Can I take it out, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Ssilvers' suggestion to remove the pirate production from the table, as there is nothing notable about the cast. The fact that it happened is better mentioned in prose. It's also optically ugly, because the first row of the table is now much wider than the other two.
I also note that the names of replacements are footnoted below the table. Every cast in every season had replacements, and we haven't noted them for any of the others. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial thoughts

This is looking pretty decent. However, citations are very poor, and it might benefit from some reorganisation, perhaps something along the lines of Trial. It could also use some vividness - for instance, quoting Jessie Bond's description of the disgruntled business partners attempting to carry off the scenery would add to the immediacy.

It needs a reviews section, similar to Trial by Jury.

All in all, the best thing may just be to use our sources, one by one, and expand (and reference) what's there, adding new sections as we see fit, then I'll do what I did with Trial by Jury, and rearrange it to force structure on it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but please do me a favor: Do not delete AND re-arrange in the same edit, because it makes it difficult for me to find what you deleted. When you do your rearranging, just re-arrange and save, and then make editorial changes in other edits. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sure, but sometimes it's hard to find a place for some minor fact during the rearrange. If that happens, I'll move it to the talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Good, that will do the trick. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)